The whole “interactive arts” scene can be restrictive sometimes, as materials, equipment or even technical knowledge can be very hard to acquire. Many pieces in the field are pioneering a technique as they are quite often experimental.

One of the problematics that artists can face is that of implementing interaction. The artist must make a choice on how to multiply the components, the programming, the interface and the response. These choices must transcend electricity and the technical aspect of the piece in order to make the intention of the artist show through. Obviously, this does not work at its best at all occasions.

Interstices - Amplified Intimacies, the exposition at the Oboro art gallery has some pieces that went through this process of choosing. The question that must be asked is the following : How effective are the modes of interaction at supporting / amplifying / augmenting the other components of the work.

I will not name the particular pieces of the exhibition but will describe them.

The “bar” piece, with illuminated drinks completely fails to amaze. The modes of interaction as it were are apparently too complex for anyone to operate at any time. 10 / 10 for effort, minus several million for good thinking. This piece should be advertised as a performance because of its temporal nature. It did not capture anyones’ attention by not being there. If a piece is in an art gallery, it should be in it. But enough on the ranting and raving.

The “International Dance Party” starts off good with a catchy name. The piece if far off in a small little room, rigged with electronics. As soon as one starts walking around the machine to look at it, it fires up. This is a type of interaction I truly admire for it’s ubiquitousness. While remaining direct interactivity, I would call this sub-type : “Do what you normally do, I’ll just stand here and watch. Then I’ll react to what you are doing.”. This type of interaction completely brings positive attention to the piece as viewers are intrigued more and more trying to find out how and why the machine is capturing their movement, sound position, heat, etc. Furthermore this type of interaction is accessible. While becoming less and less of a problem as society becomes increasingly technology literate, it is comforting to know that the older generations can still have access to newer art. Great success for this piece on augmenting its components.

The “Cell Phone” piece outside the gallery takes the cake. First of all, it is open to the public, like the streets are. It just IS there. It may not be accessible to all, but in another sense, it is accessible to everywhere. It is not location dependant. Of course, to see the result, you must be in front of the TV screen, but the idea is there. The event can be triggered from anywhere a cell phone can be used. This type of “hacking” interactivity definitely turns the tables. The components are no longer only the artist’s components. This one for example uses any cell phone to be activated.

So it all depends on how far you intend to go with the “components”. Components can range from non-existing to “it has been in your pocket the whole day”.